Compatible not competing –
Pastoral practice and civil partnerships

Martin Pendergast

Martin Pendergast is a member of Roman Catholic Caucus Steering Group. This article is based on comments made at the Civil Partnerships Hearing organised by the R. C. Caucus of the Lesbian & Gay Christian Movement, 3 August 2003.

It is now widely recognised across Europe that the development of civil partnerships’ schemes, including those for same-sex couples, is not simply a ‘political correctness’ issue, nor a sudden coup by the so-called ‘gay lobby’.⁽¹⁾  While this provokes fearful and violent language from the Vatican, it offers a challenging opportunity to the wider Church rather than the threat that “such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.” ⁽²⁾

Catholic approaches to pastoral care, at their best, express a strength and realism that comes from a critical analysis of human circumstances. Such pastoral perspectives are not fed by ideology but try to express coherently deeper and more fundamental principles of Catholic teaching, alongside a pastoral practice that empowers rather than enslaves people. Pastoral ministry in this context will include therefore, not simply counselling around ethical decision-making, but access to the Church’s liturgical and sacramental tradition whether currently expressed or long hidden. ⁽³⁾ The time-honoured pastoral process of ‘see-judge-act’ remains a helpful tool to use when looking at the pastoral implications of civil partnerships.

We need first to see the human reality before us, as it is, and not how we or others might fantasise it, interpret it, or pretend it to be. We need to judge the challenge and opportunity to live more authentically as honourably gay and lesbian people and honourably Catholic, in the light of developing faith-reflection on sexual orientation.  Finally, we must determine, not only as lesbian and gay Catholics but also those in the Church charged with pastoral ministry, what degree of pastoral accompaniment might be expected in this context. Critical in such a process is the central involvement of lesbian and gay Catholics, rather than in a position of bystanders.

The Westminster Government’s Civil Partnerships proposals offer a distinct alternative to marriage. ⁽⁴⁾ The proposals could not be clearer: they are not marriage; they cannot be interpreted as marriage and they do not undermine the legal and social definitions of marriage common to European and British society. What we have is a framework through which lesbian and gay people might become the agents of their own social inclusion, rather than objects of continuing structures of discrimination, social injustice and exclusion. The proposals offer us free possibility and opportunity. They are not forced upon us; we are free to take them or leave them with the rights and responsibilities this entails.

They provide an option for same sex-couples to be formally included within the social fabric, if we so wish. It would seem therefore that the proposals will strengthen social cohesion rather than weaken it. They will enhance the common good rather than threaten it. They will do this through enabling lesbian and gay people to ‘grow up’, to live and work and act as mature, civically responsible adults in the acceptance of a fuller range of rights and duties. They offer a practical prospect for same-sex couples to express their desire for greater stability and permanence in their relationships, recognising at the same time that the factors that bind same-sex partners to each other are not necessarily the same as those which bind heterosexual couples within or outside marriage.

They will provide greater protection for the more vulnerable members of lesbian and gay communities, distanced perhaps from the support of blood-based family networks. They will provide greater stability for children being nurtured by same-sex parents,especially when taken alongside the reforms of the Adoption Act. There will be a consistency in parental rights, access, and the right of a child to grow up in a loving family, alongside children brought up by single people or married couples.

So what criteria can we call upon from the Church in making and living with informed and responsible choices?  This is where the late Cardinal Basil Hume’s observations on Catholic teaching about homosexuality, first developed in 1993, might be helpful. Cardinal Hume recognised that the Church

“ … is called to present to all ages a demanding understanding and ethic of marriage and sexuality, one that is often difficult to realise in practice but which all should continually strive to make their own.” ⁽⁵⁾

The Cardinal was very clear about the distinction between sexual ethical judgements relating to personal behaviour and the responsibility of the Church to defend human rights and social justice:

            “The church also opposes discrimination in all circumstances where a person’s  sexual orientation or activity cannot reasonably be regarded as relevant  factors.” ⁽⁶⁾          

James Keenan SJ, Professor of Moral Theology at Weston Jesuit School of Theology and Boston College in the USA, testified recently before the Massachusetts Judicial Hearing on a proposed anti gay-marriage amendment (H.3190) to the State constitution. He took a stand against the amendment on the grounds that it is contrary to Catholic social justice teaching. He differentiated, as do increasing numbers of Catholic theologians,  between the church’s theology of chastity and its theology of justice:

             “ In the former, the Catholic theological position prohibits all sexual activity outside of those non-contraceptive relations between a husband and wife.    It thus opposes the sexual activity of all divorced heterosexual persons, all  unmarried heterosexual persons, and all gay and lesbian persons, as well as  any contraceptive activity of sacramentally married husbands and wives.  When it comes to the social lives of all these persons – both hetero- and homosexual – whose sexual activities it opposes, Catholic theology does not by any extension endorse the unequal or discriminatory treatment of any of these people. Thus it does not argue against treating divorced heterosexual persons justly or equitably, nor against just and equitable treatment of gays and lesbians. On the contrary, it obliges society to recognise that all these persons retain their full range of human and civil rights because of their inherent dignity as human persons. … In this light … I cannot see how  anyone could use the Roman Catholic tradition to support H.3190. On the contrary, the Catholic theological tradition stands against the active and unjust discrimination against the basic social rights of gay and lesbian  persons.” ⁽⁷⁾

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s recent “Considerations …” would not, I think, have found much favour from Cardinal Hume, attempting as it does to instruct Catholic politicians and pastors what they should do in the face of such legislation. The Cardinal wrote:

            “ Given the complexity of the issues of social policy which can arise, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has indicated that judgements about legislation and responses … can be left to the bishops of the country concerned.” ⁽⁸⁾

There’s obviously been some development of doctrine in the CDF since July 1992 ! ⁽⁹⁾

But the Cardinal then went on, very importantly, to outline the following as among the most important criteria for considering legislative proposals:

           “  -    are there reasonable grounds form judging that the institution of marriage and the family could and would, be undermined by a particular legislative proposal ? - would refusing a proposed change in the law be more harmful to the common good than accepting such a change ? - does a person’s sexual orientation or activity constitute a sufficient and relevant reason for treating that person in any way differently from other  citizens in specific circumstances ? ” ⁽¹⁰)

Many lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people, as well as serious-minded heterosexual people, when considering the Westminster Government’s proposals, would answer all these criteria with an emphatic ‘No.’ However, Cardinal Hume,  recognising that using these same criteria Catholics might come to varying decisions, nevertheless reiterated the bottom line, which was the strong statement of the Bishops’ Conference of England & Wales 1979 Social Welfare Commission document:     

            “ The Church has a serious responsibility to work for the elimination of any injustices perpetrated on homosexuals by society. As a group that has suffered more than its share of oppression and contempt, the homosexual community has particular claim upon the concern of the Church.” ⁽¹¹⁾

So what kind of pastoral action should be the outcome of the kind of ‘see and judge’ process I have so far outlined?  As far as the Catholic Bishops of England & Wales are concerned, I believe they must, in the light of the recent CDF document, insist on the principle of subsidiarity, already acknowledged by the CDF in 1992. One good reason would be that this Bishops’ Conference is one of the very few to have a detailed, considered and fully endorsed approach to the pastoral care of lesbian and gay Catholics, even if, hitherto, they have been too frightened to enact it in an ortho-practical manner.⁽¹²⁾   I believe they must unequivocally answer the request made in a recent Roman Catholic Caucus statement whether or not they recognise that   “lesbian and gay people exist as a class of people with rights and esponsibilities, just as we are.”⁽¹³⁾

If they are able to do this, then they should also offer explicit and transparent support to those organisations which seek to support lesbian and gay Catholics in the integration of their faith, sexual orientation and relationships, including not only lesbian and gay specific groups but others such as Marriage Care.

At local diocesan and parish levels, I personally would like to see progress in achieving some of the points made by the RC Caucus in its 2002 ‘Voices that Challenge’ vision-statement on lesbian and gay ministry in the Catholic Church.⁽¹⁴⁾ I would like to see same-sex couples being offered, through the Church’s ordinary pastoral provision, an opportunity to explore civil partnerships’ commitments with fully informed minds and consciences. The Government’s Consultation document clearly expects people to enter into such commitments with seriousness, and for such not to be taken lightly. Here is a positive contribution that the Church could make to ensure that such schemes do indeed build up the common good and enhance values of human cherishing and commitment.

Finally, to paraphrase a Canadian Lutheran pastor:

         “This is a case of compatible, not competing freedoms. Giving same-sex couples this right should not be seen as a threat to the church’s right to choose which  couples it marries inside its doors. In fact, wherever we stand on this issue,  this is the kind of diversity of opinion – and freedom of choice – that we should celebrate and protect.” ⁽¹⁵⁾

^{___________________}

Notes:

¹⁾  Civil Partnership: A framework for the legal recognition of same-sex couples, pg.15,   Women & Equality Unit, Department for Trade & Industry (DTI), June 2003.

²⁾  Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, Section 8, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF),  3 June 2003.

³⁾ Cf. Christianity, Social Tolerance & Homosexuality, John Boswell, University of Chicago Press, 1980; The Friend, Alan Bray, University of Chicago Press, 2003.

⁴⁾  Civil Partnership, op.cit.

⁵⁾   Observations on the Catholic Church’s Teaching Concerning Homosexual People,  para. 6, Cardinal Basil Hume, 1993 (Revised 1997).

⁶⁾   Cardinal Basil Hume, op.cit., para. 7.

7)   James Keenan SJ., 28 April 2003.

8)   Cardinal Basil Hume, op.cit. para. 8.

9)   L’ Osservatore Romano, 29 July 1992

10)  Cardinal Basil Hume, op.cit. para. 8.

11)  An Introduction to the Pastoral Care of Homosexual People, para. 9, Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England & Wales Social Welfare Commission, 1979.

12)  ‘Ortho-praxis’ – consistent practice – is as central to the proclamation of truth as ‘ortho-doxy’ – consistent teaching. Same-sex couples seek to live out Catholic orthodoxy insofar as they grow in faith through dwelling in the biblical story, the community’s handing on of faith, and the Church’s liturgical and sacramental heritage.

13)  Civil Partnerships, Government & Church – an Initial Statement, Roman Catholic  Caucus, Lesbian & Gay Christian Movement, 4 July 2003.

¹⁴⁾  RC Caucus - LGCM, July 2002.

¹⁵⁾ The Revd. Joel Crouse, 18 July 2003.

Copyright 2003 by Martin Pendergast.  Reprinted with permission of the author by

www.GayCatholicForum.org